Driving in a government vehicleby Dana Seetahal
I trust that the Minister of Works is not giving legal advice to the Government or the Prime Minister, on the issue as to who is liable for use of the coat of arms, instead of number plates, on the car used to transport the Prime Minister.
I do not doubt the capacity of the minister to read legislation before, but it is an established principle in the legal profession that a person who has himself for a client has a fool for a client.
Thus, it would be inadvisable for the PM to be guided by the personal advice of a member of his government and one who is not a lawyer.
While the minister may have been correct in saying that the PM broke no law in being driven in a vehicle without number plates, the fact is that someone is responsible.
The law demands that a vehicle that is to be used or kept for use be registered. Only vehicles used or owned by the President and new vehicles or those brought in by visitors for up to three months are exempt.
Therefore, any vehicle utilised by the PM must be registered.
Must conform
Statements attributed to the minister are to the effect that the requirement for licensing motor vehicles was abolished by Act No 9 of 1997, and the requirement for identification marks (commonly known as licence plates) was abolished by Act No 25 of 1997.
I find the latter statement to be inexplicable. If there were no such requirement, why is it that people when they purchase a vehicle do not obtain it until they have been allocated a number and issued with licence plates?
If the minister, indeed, made this statement, then I would refer him to the regulations to the Motor Vehicle and Road Traffic Act and section 12 (5) of the current act.
Section 12 (5) specifies:
“If a motor vehicle does not bear an identification mark, as required by the Licensing Authority, this fact shall be regarded as prima facie evidence that the vehicle has not been registered, and any constable may detain such a vehicle until enquires have been made.”
Regulation 7 of the regulations to the act states:
“The identification mark to be carried by a registered vehicle or trailer, in pursuance of section 12 of the act, shall consist of two plates which must conform as to size, lettering, numbering and otherwise with the following provisions:”
The regulation then details the specific requirements for those number plates, including numbering, shape and colouring.
It is clear, then, that all vehicles, but for those of the President and others exempt, must be registered. Further, to be registered, a vehicle must carry an identification mark as specified in the regulations. Such a mark includes a designation of P, H or such and a number (see Regulation 7 (1) (a) (i)).
Therefore, if a vehicle used by the PM bears no number plates, someone is in breach of the law. That must have been evident to the acting Commissioner, which would explain why the vehicle (apparently registered as PBM 1) is now detained, to the extent that it is now parked at the PM’s residence. Or, so it is reported.
The onus is on the owner of a vehicle to prove that a vehicle is registered. One expects that the vehicle in which the PM is driven may not be his vehicle. It may be registered in the name of the Government of T&T or some state agency.
If so, it is up to the Government to show that the vehicle is properly registered and to account for failure to comply with the law.
While the PM is not the owner of such a vehicle, he is clearly the user. Any attempt to say that he is a mere passenger in the vehicle is ludicrous.
Not insured
I am sure that no one, other than the PM or his wife, has been driven in that Benz (registered as PBM 1) on a regular basis.
In his previous life, he would have been familiar with the fact that number plates should be affixed to a car.
If he did not direct that the coat of arms should be placed on the vehicle, instead of identifying marks, did he never question how this came about?
It is true that there is no requirement to insure government vehicles according to Section 3 (4) of the Motor Vehicles Insurance Third Party Risks Act.
This exemption arises from a practical decision on costs made by previous legislature. In other words, it is far cheaper to pay costs arising from accidents involving government vehicles rather than to pay annual premiums on all such vehicles.
In summary, then, it seems that any vehicle utilised by the PM (or anyone but the President, or in respect of new vehicles and those by visitors for three months) must bear number plates.
The PM may be using a vehicle that is not insured, but he may not legitimately use one bearing the coat of arms in lieu of number plates.
http://guardian.co.tt/dana.html
